About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)
. >> miss fewer? >> yes. >> miss maufas? >> yes. >> thank you miss mendoza? >> yes. >> dr. maufas? >> aye. >> miss norton? >> yes. >> miss wynns? >> aye. >> president yee? >> aye. >> seven aye. item m discussion of other educational issues. none. item n, consent calendars resolutions. item o, vote on consent calendar moved and seconded under section f. roll call, please. >> thank you. miss ly? >> yes. >> miss fewer? >> yes. >> miss maufas? >> i am taking the roll call on the consent calendar. >> miss mendoza? >> yes, except for k4. >> you are voting what on k4? >> i abstain. >> miss mendoza? >> yes except on k3, 5 and 6 or actually 5 got pulled. on 3 and 6, because they are retroactive. >> thank you. dr. murase? >> yes, point of information, so the personnel item was receive sered severed, correct? >> yes. >> the first item is f9 severed correct? okay, f13. i think commissioner maufas, you severed that? >> i did. we received courtesy of uesf president. are we in the midst of litigation and should we be discussing this item at all? >> the particular fact
submitted an extension of her time until the 30th of november. >> commissioner maufas? >> i guess you are not comfortable with this, but you have mentioned it and i will mention it as well. the discussion between the principal and miss olsen saying somebody is going to start on the 30th and she submitted a second resignation letter changing the date to the 30th. sounds like that is the reason. i am not going to project, but just guess on my own. and then on the 14th, miss olsen said you have an email asking the principal is it possible to be reinstated. is that correct? she submitted a second resignation letter to hr, changing the date to the 30th and that might have been after the cation conversation that you just mentioned and she asked the principal is it possible to be reinstated? >> she submitted the second resignation form on the 13th, requesting an effective date of 11/30, on the 13th. the day after that, the 14th, she remailed the principal and asked if it was possible to be reinstated. >> then on the 16th, she emailed the principal that she did not get a response? >> that
-- to accept the recommendation yes. >> miss ly? >> yes. >> miss fewer. yes. >> miss maufas? >> no. >> miss mendoza? >> yes. >> dr. murase? >> aye. >> miss norton? >> yes. >> miss wynns? >> yes. >> president yee? >> aye. >> the next item is k5 and commissioner wynns. >> i want to have it explained more, the private product that we were licensing, using through a license, was bought by a county office of education? >> originally they started out as the county office product, san joaquin county invented it and sold it to this company that could not handle the demands across the state and so they gave back to san joaquin county because it was not cost-effective. >> so when we started to license it, it was under the san joaquin license? >> i would have to go back and check the records. they put in for a three-year contract and it came back from contracts saying that we don't have three-year contracts with vendors in our districts. at that time consultants were attached to it, because we were training our teachers and staffs with consultants. this year when they put it th
place of employment of commissioner maufas, is that correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> so that would seem that commissioner maufas would be not able to vote on any thing pertaining to the oaks children center. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> does that extend to not be able to vote -- since oak's children center is a non-public school placement, would that mean she would not be able to vote on any non-public school placement resolutions or any contracts? >> my advice to commissioner maufas is that she not vote on any non-public school matter. >> so then commissioner maufas would then excuse herself from any of those votes? >> excuse herself from any discussion, with any board members either in a meeting or not in a meeting and abstain from voting on all of those items, yes, ma'am. >> so are those topics to be discussed for example at a committee meeting, a committee of the whole or a curriculum committee meeting, would she then there be exempt from participating in those discussions? >> she would. >> would she be exempt from participating in any discussion around spe
. >> miss maufas? >> yes. >> miss mendoza? >> aye. >> dr. maufas? murase. >> aye? >> miss wynns? >> aye. >> mr. yee? >> aye >> seven ayes. >> thank you. the second special order of business would be the recommendation that the board of education of the san francisco unified school district review and adopt the developer impact fee amount and five-year reports for the five year ending june 30, 2012. is there a motion and second? >> so moved. >> second. >> reading by commission designee. >> good evening, commissioners, it's that time for the most exciting report that you will hear. i thought i had the monoply until i heard the last item identified and i figured there was some competition for this report. there has been a lot of great news tonight, i guess in a funny sort of way buried in this rather droll report. for those of you who may remember that there were a couple of sections in the government code that require every school district in california, every year to provide the following information on what is called "developer impact fees," which are essentially the f
that commissioner maufas correctly is, i think, identified that she was going to abstain and leave the room in this case before we voted on the other item. because even though we know, we have to officially -- she has to identify it before the discuss or the vote takes place. but one of the things that concerns me is that the way we work with non-public schools, and i presume that is one reason why you are advising her to not vote on anything related to non-public school placements is that we just have contracts with them and we could assign people. we could take a child from one non-public school and move them to oaks or take them from oaks and move them somewhere else and that would be problematic, and would like to acknowledge that.in the case of the non-public schools we just say these are the non-public schools that we're going to contract with and it's placement, et cetera. so we don't actually vote on the amount of money we're giving to each non-public school that. is what makes this a little different. >> exactly right, commissioner wynns, which is why this particular reso $13
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)